Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What happened is quite straightforward, really: There were a number of reports about Shaddim's behavior in the PL. After some deliberations, we issued several infractions. Because the sum total of points exceeded the limit, Shaddim was automatically temp banned.

What happened is quite straightforward, really: There were a number of reports about Shaddim's behavior in the PL. After some deliberations, we issued several infractions. Because the sum total of points exceeded the limit, Shaddim was automatically temp banned.

Was there any warning, or did he suddenly get hit with the total pile of infractions?

If the individual complaints were minor, a shorter ban would have made the point.

Was there any warning, or did he suddenly get hit with the total pile of infractions?

If the individual complaints were minor, a shorter ban would have made the point.

In our judgement the complaints were not minor, otherwise we would have opted to issue warnings instead. The ban period is a default we have chosen a long time ago if the ban is triggered by the infraction point count. Shaddim is a long-time member of the forum with a history, he knows the rules and it is not his first rodeo. In this instance, we decided to aggregate the discussion of the various abuse reports and to “measure twice and cut once” (i. e. reacting to all of them after we had made up our minds). So on Shaddim's end it may seem as if we “piled on”, but that wasn't the case.

In our judgement the complaints were not minor, otherwise we would have opted to issue warnings instead. The ban period is a default we have chosen a long time ago if the ban is triggered by the infraction point count. Shaddim is a long-time member of the forum with a history, he knows the rules and it is not his first rodeo. In this instance, we decided to aggregate the discussion of the various abuse reports and to “measure twice and cut once” (i. e. reacting to all of them after we had made up our minds). So on Shaddim's end it may seem as if we “piled on”, but that wasn't the case.

I could be completely off, but my perception are things have gotten at least slightly more freewheeling since NN proper died, and as I said it's been ages since I've seen the ban counter. I can't remember the last time it happened.

If the first thing reported/seen is worth tagging him for a week, then there's nothing which can be done other than tagging him for a week.

If that first infraction wasn't worth a week, and he got a week because he piled up other infractions while the first one was being deliberated on, that seems at least a little unfair when matched with my (perhaps incorrect) perception things have been more hands-off than in the past. He very well may have reeled it in before the hole got so deep.

I could be completely off, but my perception are things have gotten at least slightly more freewheeling since NN proper died, and as I said it's been ages since I've seen the ban counter. I can't remember the last time it happened.

I haven't seen any figures, but traffic has come down — after all, how are you going to find these forums if you don't already know about them? So naturally, temp bans have become more rare of a thing.

Originally Posted by subego

If that first infraction wasn't worth a week, and he got a week because he piled up other infractions while the first one was being deliberated on, that seems at least a little unfair when matched with my (perhaps incorrect) perception things have been more hands-off than in the past. He very well may have reeled it in before the hole got so deep.

We have just applied the points system as it has existed for many years: different infractions have different point scores. Active infraction points have a finite shelf life, and they become inactive after some period. If you cross a certain threshold, you are banned until you drop below the threshold — in this case, one week. We could manually adjust the ban period, but we have been using the point system consistently for the last few years. From experience, a one-week ban is practically the minimum temp ban duration. If we want to lengthen the vacation we give to an offending member, we would adjust the ban period manually. On rare occasions we block people just from the PL, but we haven't done that in a while.

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Aug 28, 2017, 01:33 PM

I think subego's point is that MacNStein didn't get any warning infractions or any notice of reports or deliberation, just nothing and then all of a sudden a ban.

The point of the infraction system is that a user knows infractions that are coming in and can temper behavior to cool off before the infraction count gets too high. It's like your bank gathering a whole bunch of charges over time and sitting on them, then processing them all at once to ensure the account goes overdrawn. If the charges came in one by one, spending could be halted in time.

I think subego's point is that MacNStein didn't get any warning infractions or any notice of reports or deliberation, just nothing and then all of a sudden a ban.

The point of the infraction system is that a user knows infractions that are coming in and can temper behavior to cool off before the infraction count gets too high. It's like your bank gathering a whole bunch of charges over time and sitting on them, then processing them all at once to ensure the account goes overdrawn. If the charges came in one by one, spending could be halted in time.

I think subego's point is that MacNStein didn't get any warning infractions or any notice of reports or deliberation, just nothing and then all of a sudden a ban.

The point of the infraction system is that a user knows infractions that are coming in and can temper behavior to cool off before the infraction count gets too high. It's like your bank gathering a whole bunch of charges over time and sitting on them, then processing them all at once to ensure the account goes overdrawn. If the charges came in one by one, spending could be halted in time.

This is correct.

As luck would have it just got an infraction to remind me of the process.

I made a shitpost at about noon yesterday, within 24 hours I got dinged. I now know if I keep shitposting, I'm engaging in unacceptable behavior.

While it's possible to rack up a bunch of points pretty quickly, and "suddenly" find yourself banned, in this case it was not "quick" at all. "Warnings" in the form of infraction reports were issued over a long enough period of time that nobody could have been taken by surprise by the eventual temporary ban.

I think subego's point is that MacNStein didn't get any warning infractions or any notice of reports or deliberation, just nothing and then all of a sudden a ban.

Shaddim is no spring chicken, and has been warned in the past. The system worked exactly as intended, and if we had wanted to, we would have issued warnings rather than infractions.

Originally Posted by Laminar

Or it's a leftist conspiracy by the liberal SJW mods.

We have always had these accusations regularly in the past, even when we had more (active) conservative mods taking care of the PL. The offended member would usually assume that it was this one liberal mod who went rogue and had it out for them, and “punished them” for their political opinions (rather than being a d*ck or trolling). Bans, especially manual bans are never, ever the action of a single person (sans spam, of course). Of course, even after so many years, the reprimanded (long-time) member often doesn't see it that way.

Since we introduced the infraction point system, things got a lot easier, because we no longer have to manually track which mod sent what to which member to cool things down. It was more subjective to issue temp bans and all that. You can see the number of past points and warning points, so that you immediately get an idea of how much trouble that member was in in the past.

"'Warnings' in the form of infraction reports were issued over a long enough period of time that nobody could have been taken by surprise by the eventual temporary ban."

Glenn was speaking about how the infraction point system works in general: we can issue infractions and warnings, although you should be warned by the infractions and warnings you have received in the past. Receiving warnings will not increment your infraction point counter, but they are still tracked separately by the system (in the form of active warning points). That means if I issue 20 points worth of warnings, you will not be auto temp banned.

Depending on the type of infraction, the warning points become inactive after a set amount of time. That's useful for knowing how merciful to be: if you are a long-time member with a clean sheet and you post something you later regret on a bad hair day, it's likely we will either send you a pm or issue a warning. I have done this from time to time where I have sent messages to people who got wound up in a discussion, and most of them were courteous in how they replied (others less so).

However, if you have racked up a number of infraction points and warnings in the past, we are less inclined to let you off with a warning, especially if we deem that this behavior is standard of your MO. And of course, if you are someone who has racked up quite a few infractions and warnings, you should know that we will be more aggressive when it comes to the enforcement of forum rules (i. e. you have been warned). It's all pretty straight-forward really.

I meant "warning" in the sense if I receive an infraction below the ban threshold, points or no, I've been "warned".

It's a judgement call if a warning suffices or not, one made by us. We don't go running around issuing infractions willy nilly, and we give special leeway to discussions in the PL (and I try to be diligent that this doesn't spill over to the other sub forums).

Originally Posted by subego

The latter strikes me as unfair, unless my transgressions are so rapid-fire it makes no sense to consider them as individual infractions.

At the end of the day it is up to the staff to determine what is and isn't fair.

At the end of the day it's up to the staff to run the forum. Most would hope this is done in a fair manner. If it is, the staff will be adjudicated by the members as having behaved as such. If not, they won't.

Again, the debate about the terminology is irrelevant. The question is whether users are given adequate opportunity to alter their behavior. Going from zero to ban does not offer this opportunity.

If this is what happened, I don't approve of it. I venture most don't.

I went back through recent posts of his and honestly didn't see anything specifically more antagonistic than usual. Then again, I remain pretty far out of the loop with what happens in the Forbidden City.

If I were to look at the timestamps on the infraction list, would I go "it is obvious this person was given an opportunity to alter their behavior", or "it is unclear whether this person was given an opportunity to alter their behavior"?

Maybe I misunderstood what subego was getting at (who I thought asked something along the lines of “How can he be warned if he directly received infractions?”), but I thought he was confused about issuing warnings as opposed to infractions and being warned. That part is general and applies to all members, not just this specific situation.

If I misunderstood subego here, then yes, you're right, l was giving an answer to a different question.